• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Wiggins the one who gains from Lances's downfall

Oct 29, 2012
2
0
0
Visit site
+1. No winners are imune from suspicion. I think LeMond might be as close as they come.

Mad Elephant Man said:
Wiggins might gain this but I think overall it makes people far more sceptical about riders and Wiggins loses because of that.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Zam_Olyas said:
How can this be? He said he never rode with The Lance and it was just a myth.

And now it's been confirmed - you see, Brad was right all along.


(actually, ok, I loathe the use of LOL, but your post did make me lol.)
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Visit site
Their excuse is probably going to be a desire not to crown a champion through allocation. It's just so 2006. In reality, it's because Sir Wigans didn't come in 2nd, a bunch of filthy Germans and Italians did.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,295
0
0
Visit site
johnjones123 said:
How does the 2009 Tour results get reallocated but the 1999-2005 tour results dont? There needs to be consistency here!!:confused:

LA has not been accused of doping at that time, he was under a different umbrella that does not have a proven association.

LA is only disqualified from that race because he was banned for life in 2005 (retroactively of course) Which makes him ineligible for the 2009 3rd place. Does this mean that Contador was clean? So far Astana has no reports of Postal practices but LA has been accused of it. I don't believe he was sanctioned for doping in 2009.
 
Zam_Olyas said:
How can this be? He said he never rode with The Lance and it was just a myth.

Briant_Gumble said:
LMAO because it was such a point of mysterious conjecture before he said that.

Dr. Maserati said:
And now it's been confirmed - you see, Brad was right all along....

Is wiggo really that clever that he can make a jest that he never competed against Armstrong because Armstrong has had all performances excised? :eek:

NO because he said the 2004 CI, which is also excised. :D
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
sittingbison said:
Is wiggo really that clever that he can make a jest that he never competed against Armstrong because Armstrong has had all performances excised? :eek:

NO because he said the 2004 CI, which is also excised. :D

He competed against Lance - of that there is no question. It's just that Lance didn't win anything. Lance still raced, he was just more of a loser than the rest.
 
well I'm glad they can feel comfortable moving people up the victory rung in the clean era. The pressing question is - what will the Suisse organizers do about the 2010 2nd place?

what a bunch of garbage. I bet they just moved Wiggins up and no one else in the top 10.
 
The farce continues - some riders get upgraded, some don't. Record book in cycling is a joke. Clean era after 2005 - what a joke!!!
Reminder: in 2010 Contador was caught for doping, in 2006 Landis was caught for doping. 2009 cannot be clean.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Where was Bradley's outrage when he got beaten by lance in 2009?
Didn't the thought of coming in second to dopers make Bradley sick?
Ah right, he thought lance was clean.:rolleyes:
 
Based on what I watched then and since, there is no way AC, Andy and Lance let alone Wiggins were clean in 2009.

My (admittedly) subjective opinion is that the Tour peloton got slower in 2010 and slower again in 2011. And anyhow, didn't I read USADAs report on Lance claimed clear evidence of blood manipulation in his comeback after retrospective analysis?

Sorry, but I agree with guncha, it seems the farce continues :mad:
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Wallace and Gromit said:
Wiggo also announced it was time to draw the raffle when giving his Tour victory speech in Paris, which suggests one should not always take everything he says 100% seriously!

:confused:

You can try to weasel out of what Brad is quoted as saying in the press all you like, but it's pretty transparent when

1. in 2007 he hated dopers so we'll take that 100% seriously but in
2. 2010 he loves Lance - we won't take that 100% seriously.

Seriously?

Sky don't need a PR machine pumping out Ministry of Truth messages when the fans will twist anything reported by Brad until it's palatable.

Please, continue.

Spin this into an anti-doping message. I'm all ears...

"I love him," Wiggins said. "I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense. Even his strongest critics have benefitted from him. I don't think this sport will ever realise what he's brought it or how big he's made it.

"Cycling was in the dark ages before he came along, in many ways. You only have to look at the support along the roads, compared to what it was 20 years ago. The majority of that is because of Lance Armstrong. Obviously he has his enemies and people among the fans who don't like him, but they've all benefitted from him and his existence on the Tour."
 
Sep 29, 2011
81
0
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
:confused:

You can try to weasel out of what Brad is quoted as saying in the press all you like, but it's pretty transparent when

1. in 2007 he hated dopers so we'll take that 100% seriously but in
2. 2010 he loves Lance - we won't take that 100% seriously.

Seriously?

Sky don't need a PR machine pumping out Ministry of Truth messages when the fans will twist anything reported by Brad until it's palatable.

Please, continue.

Spin this into an anti-doping message. I'm all ears...

i have to say if i was a pro cyclist part of me would love LA because there is no doubt Wiggins is earning a lot more money because of LA raising the profile of cycling than would have ahppened if LA didn't exist. what is happening now with LA might be 4 steps back but becasue of LA cycling took 7 steps forward comercially.

and recently he said Father Christmas is not real do we take that 100% seriously.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Velo_vicar said:
i have to say if i was a pro cyclist part of me would love LA because there is no doubt Wiggins is earning a lot more money because of LA raising the profile of cycling than would have ahppened if LA didn't exist. what is happening now with LA might be 4 steps back but becasue of LA cycling took 7 steps forward comercially.
.

It's a dead set certainty that's exactly what Brad was referring to - himself benefitting tremendously financially thanks to Lance's assistance.

So we're overall 3 steps better off thanks to Lance?

I bet the women trying to make it in pro cycling wished that were so. And Lemond cycles. And Mike Anderson. etc. etc.
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
1
0
Visit site
Another Tour podium is the last thing the dude needs in the present climate. Not been a good month for the knighted British establishment either, just saying.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
1. in 2007 he hated dopers so we'll take that 100% seriously...

You can take what you like 100% seriously but I've never suggested anyone should take that particular comment seriously, and as per my previous post I don't take anything Wiggo says seriously. The comment about loving Lance does seem like a p***-take to me, but I have a somewhat unusual sense of humour. Maybe he does love Lance. Last time I checked the WADA code, loving Lance was not a prohibited process.
 
Sep 29, 2011
81
0
0
Visit site
Dear Wiggo said:
So we're overall 3 steps better off thanks to Lance?

I bet the women trying to make it in pro cycling wished that were so. And Lemond cycles. And Mike Anderson. etc. etc.

yes exactly 3! just making the point that comercially cycling grew massively because of LA. i don't think anyone can deny that as it i beleive the reason the UCI were so complicit with LA. I am sure the average cyclist earns more because LA existed than if he never did. So they might be a part of them that is thankful for LA even if they detest him as a person and how he lied. It will be interesting to see what the lasting comercial damage is because of LA.